RSSNapster.com Goes Free, But Low Quality
By Nate Mook | Published May 1, 2006, 1:22 PM
In an effort to attract more subscribers to its digital music service, Napster on Monday launched an ad-supported offering that allows users to listen to over two million tracks free of charge. But there is a catch: the songs are streamed in low-quality audio and can only be heard five times each.
Unlike its traditional subscription product, by making the free service Web based via Napster.com, the company can support Mac OS X, Linux and Windows users. When a user selects a track to hear, the site pops up a Flash player, which displays album art from the currently playing song and an advertisement.
There is also a 15-second advertisement that displays the first time the Napster.com player is loaded. After a track is played for the fifth time, it can be purchased for 99 cents or the user must subscribe and pay Napster's monthly fee.
Napster rival RealNetworks' Rhapsody service offers a similar free option, but it is limited to 25 tracks per month. However, Napster.com does not support playlist creation and its songs are available in a lower quality.
"Napster was born of the idea of eliminating all barriers to discovering, enjoying and sharing music and of putting the power in the hands of fans," said Napster CEO Chris Gorog. "With a vision to empower music fans in a legal environment, with an open, all-inclusive platform, we are very excited to share our new free music experience at Napster.com."
In addition to free streaming music, Napster.com will also feature two service designed for the music community. NapsterLinks enables users to send URLs to tracks on Napster.com to others via e-mail or IM, and add them to blogs. The links will open the Napster.com Flash player to stream the songs.
The Narchive, meanwhile, will serve as a public repository containing audio, pictures, stories and other memorabilia related to music. Individuals can setup a personal page with links to Napster.com music, as well as search for information and photos of artists. Narchive is slated to launch in beta form shortly.
"With all the progress the digital music industry has made over the past few years, a digital music model that fully-satisfies everyone -- fans, artists, labels and rights holders -- has yet to surface," added Gorog. "We believe we have taken a significant step toward achieving this goal."
Booo...can't do it from Canada :p
Only gives you 30-second previews
Score: 0
|pfft i dont listen to stuff under 256kbps i mean 128kbps is already substandard...
Score: 0
|*128kbps is already substandard...*
Oh whatever .. maybe because of where you are downloading, the majority of my stuff is 128, and its fine. I have a high quality stereo in my car, I have Satelitte radio, and I can hear the difference.. the MP3 at 128 is great.
CD quality audio is recorded the studio level Kbs... Or maybe your ripping software sucks!
I have had many people in my car, Audio enthusiasts, and *NO ONE* can tell its an MP3 or a CD Audio track.
Score: 0
|LOL !!! Real napster died long ago.
192kbps is standard, And if they plan something about 64kbps Then Im not gonna even look napster's way. There are better services than napster.
Score: 0
|128Kbs is standard. Maybe your version of standard is higher, but 128 is INDUSTRY standard to be comparable to CD quality.
Score: 0
|I call bullsh*t. Proof? Just because someone said that somewhere doesn't make it true. Since mp3 cuts frequencies out, it'll never be "CD-Quality". It's a substandard listening experience. You might not be bothered with 128, but I am, and a lot of others can pick the difference, even if you cannot. And it doesn't matter what encoder you use.
MP3 sucks anyways, as do most of these music services. FLAC/SHN/APE is the way to go. When one of these services offer lossless encoding with no dirty DRM tricks, call me. Until then, not interested.
Score: 0
|I totally agree, Waxly. Let the sheeps and cows overpay for their sh!tty quality, DRM restricted mp3s. I'll keep buying used and rip them myself.
Score: 0
|why use crappy services if you can download songs with higher quality lol
Score: 0
|I can say with 100% certainty that the quality is nowhere close to the quality of a 128kbps MP3.
If I had to say, the quality more closely mimics that of a 64kbps MP3, if that.
A 3 minute song ran about 1MB.
Score: 0
|It must be horrible. 128kbps is already crap, 64kbps is like listening to music on a telephone. Napster realllly played prudent on this one.
Score: 0
|i really think you are exagerating or you must have a really awesome stereo to think 128K is crap.
though it is a good idea, i already use something better, http://www.allofmp3.com - with more than $50 on your account, you can listen to the full cd of whatever you want (in their catalogue), A quality 7 (210 KBps) cd in ogg format for $2-$3, or around 12 cents per song.
Score: 0
|They quality of the stereo has nothing to do with it. the quality of the RECORDING is the key. Maybe they got their stuff from mp3cheap.com or whatever, I have good quality (ripped myself) MP3 and I download from another site that has between 128-320 kbs (most are 128) and they sound fine.
In fact, I have to look at my specs on the songs to see the difference.. I can guarantee you can't HEAR the difference.
Score: 0
|So stupid..
Score: 0
|Nuked post.
Score: 0
|Perhaps if they offered support outside of the USA, they might even have a chance at rivaling iTunes...
Score: 0
|The Narchive, meanwhile, will serve as a public repository. Narc~Hive?
Score: 0
|Great idea...shouldn't be too noticeable for a lot of modern music: the hisses/pops/echos/slowdowns/distorted voices/etc. will just sound like intended special effects--mixed with imbibement of assorted narcs, your average punk won't even be able to remember previous playings of the song(to notice any difference)... Let's go check out how low-quality the sound actually is...
Score: 0
|They already invented low quality, its called the Phonograph...
Score: 0
|And am/fm.......
Score: 0
|